Sunday, November 22, 2009

Splitting the Sky - Lack of 'Mens Rea' while arresting George Bush in Calgary

Victoria, BC - Sept. 13th, 2009


Open Letter to President Hugo Chavez

Why I Tried to Arrest George W. Bush

By Splitting the Sky

Nov. 22, 2009

“We need a real criminal investigation into the most horrific crime ever to take place on American soil, and we need it now.” Thomas Keane head of the 911 Commission hearings
Sept 6th, 2009

Bush's “perpetual war” is taking aim at Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Iran—all rich in petroleum. The U.S. backed brutal Israeli war against the Palestinians seeks to maintain U.S. hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East. U.S. military support to Colombia is now openly admitted by the Bush administration to be aimed at protecting pipelines and putting down popular insurgency. Similarly, the recent U.S.-backed coup attempt against the Chavez government of Venezuela had much to do with controlling that country's petroleum riches. Increasingly, U.S. and world public opinion is awakening to the hidden agenda of the “war on terrorism”—the corporate frenzy to plunder oil and other resources in the petroleum-rich arc stretching from the Middle East to Southeast Asia. The war in Afghanistan is central to reaping super profits from all that “black gold.” Karen Talbot

“Control oil and you control nations. Control food and you control people", Henry Kissinger

“There is no longer any doubt as to whether the Bush administration has committed war crimes.” US Major General Antonio Taguba, the retired major general who investigated abuses in Iraq. “The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”

“Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy" Henry Kissinger.

“I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal that to be the case. For example, it is known that President Bush's father, through the Carlyle Group had - at the time of the attacks - joint business interests with the bin Laden construction company and many defense industry holdings, the stocks of which, have soared since September 11. On the other hand, what is undeniable is that corporations close to the Administration have directly benefited from the increased defense spending arising from the aftermath of September 11. The Carlyle Group, DynCorp, and Halliburton certainly stand out as companies close to this Administration. Secretary Rumsfeld maintained in a hearing before Congress that we can afford the new spending, even though the request for more defense spending is the highest increase in twenty years and the Pentagon has lost $2.3 trillion” Cynthia McKinney

Continues here ....


David Ray Griffins Affidavit in support of John Boncore (Splitting the Sky)

The following is David Ray Griffin’s affidavit:

This affidavit is written in support of the claim by John Boncore that former Vice President Dick Cheney should be required to testify under oath in a court of law about his activities in relation to 9/11.

In my various books on the subject, I have shown that there are many good reasons to conclude that the official story about 9/11 false; that the 9/11 attacks were, at least in part, an inside job; and that Dick Cheney was at the center of this criminal and treasonous operation.

I.In “The New Pearl Harbor : Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11” (2004), I provided a summary of the various forms of evidence that the 9/11 Truth Movement had discovered at that time. I presented this summary as a prima facie argument that the 9/11 attacks had been orchestrated by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and other members of the Bush-Cheney administration.

II. In “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions” (2005), I showed that “The 9/11 Commission Report,” which appeared in the summer of 2004, had either distorted or simply omitted the evidence summarized in my previous book. In a follow-up essay entitled “The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie” (available on the Internet), I summarized 115 lies of omission or commission in the Commission’s report that I had identified.

Some of these omissions and distortions involved Cheney in particular. For example:
The Commission’s report omitted “Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon.”

The Commission’s report even claimed “that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58”---which was about 45 minutes later than others, such as Mineta, Richard Clarke, and Cheney’s own photographer, said that he had gone down there.

The Commission’s report claimed that “Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed)” while omitting “Clarke’s own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 .”

III. In “Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory” (2007)---which was awarded a Bronze Medal in the 2008 Independent Publisher Book Awards---I responded to four publications of 2006 intended to bolster the official theory.

One of those publications was a Vanity Fair article, “9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes,” which claimed that tapes released by NORAD in 2006 verified the claim of “The 9/11 Commission Report” about why the military was unable to intercept the four hijacked airliners. It claimed, for example, that the military was not even notified about American 77’s troubles until after it had struck the Pentagon---thereby contradicting the military’s earlier report, according to which it had been notified about this flight at 9:24 .

I reported, however, what I was told by Laura Brown, the Deputy in Public Affairs for the FAA. She had sent a memo to the 9/11 Commission explaining that the FAA had the FAA and the military had been in conversation about this flight even long before 9:24 . This memo was read into the 9/11 Commission’s record by Richard Ben-Veniste on May 23, 2003 (where it can still be read). And yet the Commission’s report, in rejecting the 9:24 time in favor of its own claim, simply ignored this memo.

IV. In my 2008 book, “9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press,” I laid out 25 internal contradictions within the official story (in which one supporter of the official story contradicted another).
In some of the chapters, I treated in greater detail than before the above-noted contradictions involving Dick Cheney.

Another chapter deals with a contradiction involving Cheney’s long-time friend, Donald Rumsfeld, who was secretary of defense in 2001. Whereas the 9/11 Commission report supports Donald Rumsfeld’s claim that he was in his office with a CIA briefer until the Pentagon was struck (so that he had no “situational awareness” until almost 10:00), Richard Clarke had reported in his best-selling book, “Against All Enemies,” that Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon’s teleconferencing studio, participating in the teleconference Clarke was running from the White House, from about 9:15 until the Pentagon was struck.

Still another chapter deals with a similar contradiction involving General Richard Myers, who on 9/11 was the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The 9/11 Commission supported his claim that he was up on Capitol Hill that morning, and that he had no idea what was going on until shortly before the Pentagon was struck. But Richard Clarke had reported that Myers, like Rumsfeld, was in the Pentagon’s teleconferencing studio, where he had ongoing conversations with Clarke about what was going on.

V. In my second 2008 book, “The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, The Cover-Up, and the Exposé” (which was named “Pick of the Week” by Publisher’s Weekly in the third week of November 2008), I provided an overview of the cumulative case against the official story. Many of the points made in this book are summarized in the following article (available on the Internet):

21 Reasons to Question the Official Story about 9/11
by David Ray Griffin

Note: Although the points are stated briefly, I give in each case the pages in my most recent book---“The New Pearl Harbor Revisited”---where the issue is documented and discussed more extensively.)

(1) Although the official account of 9/11 claims that Osama bin Laden ordered the attacks, the FBI does not list 9/11 as one of the terrorist acts for which he is wanted and has admitted that it “has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11” (NPHR 206-11).

(2) Although the official story holds that the four airliners were hijacked by devout Muslims ready to die as martyrs to earn a heavenly reward, Mohamed Atta and the other alleged hijackers regularly drank heavily, went to strip clubs, and paid for sex (NPHR 153-55).

(3) Many people reported having received cell phone calls from loved ones or flight attendants on the airliners, during which they were told that Middle Eastern hijackers had taken over the planes. One recipient, Deena Burnett, was certain that her husband had called her several times on his cell phone because she had recognized his number on her Caller ID. But the calls to Burnett and most of the other reported calls were made when the planes were above 30,000 feet, and evidence presented by the 9/11 truth movement showed that, given the technology of the time, cell phone calls from high-altitude airliners had been impossible. By the time the FBI presented a report on phone calls from the planes at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006, it had changed its story, saying that there were only two cell phone calls from the flights, both from United 93 after it had descended to 5,000 feet (NPHR 111-17).

(4) US Solicitor General Ted Olson’s claim that his wife, Barbara Olson, phoned him twice from AA 77, reporting that hijackers had taken it over, was also contradicted by this FBI report, which says that the only call attempted by her was “unconnected” and hence lasted “0 seconds” (NPRH 60-62).

(5) Although decisive evidence that al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks was reportedly found in Mohamed Atta’s luggage---which allegedly failed to get loaded onto Flight 11 from a commuter flight that Atta took to Boston from Portland, Maine, that morning---this story was made up after the FBI’s previous story had collapsed. According to that story, the evidence had been found in a Mitsubishi that Atta had left in the Logan Airport parking lot and the trip to Portland was taken by Adnan and Ameer Bukhari. After the FBI learned that neither of the Bukharis had died on September 11, it simply declared that the trip to Portland was made by Atta and another al-Qaeda operative (NPHR 155-62).

(6) The other types of reputed evidence for Muslim hijackers---such as videos of al-Qaeda operatives at airports, passports discovered at the crash sites, and a headband discovered at the crash site of United 93---also show clear signs of having been fabricated (NPHR 170-73).

(7) In addition to the absence of evidence for hijackers on the planes, there is also evidence of their absence: If hijackers had broken into the cockpits, the pilots would have “squawked” the universal hijack code, an act that takes only a couple of seconds. But not one of the eight pilots on the four airliners did this (NPHR 175-79).
(8) Given standard operating procedures between the FAA and the military, according to which planes showing signs of an in-flight emergency are normally intercepted within about 10 minutes, the military’s failure to intercept any of the flights implies that something, such as a stand-down order, prevented standard procedures from being carried out (NPHR 1-10, 81-84).

(9) Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta reported an episode in which Vice President Cheney, while in the bunker under the White House, apparently confirmed a stand-down order at about 9:25 AM, which was prior to the strike on the Pentagon. Another man has reported hearing members of LAX Security learn that a stand-down order had come from the “highest level of the White House” (NPHR 94-96).

(10) The 9/11 Commission did not mention Mineta’s report, removed it from the Commission’s video record of its hearings, and claimed that Cheney did not enter the shelter conference room until almost 10:00, which was at least 40 minutes later than he was really there, according to Mineta and several other witnesses, including Cheney’s photographer (NPHR 91-94).

(11) The 9/11 Commission’s timeline for Cheney that morning even contradicted what Cheney himself had told Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” September 16, just five days after 9/11 (NPHR 93).

(12) Hani Hanjour, known as a terrible pilot who could not safely fly even a single-engine airplane, could not possibly have executed the amazing trajectory reportedly taken by American Flight 77 in order to hit Wedge 1 of the Pentagon (NPHR 78-80).

(13) Wedge 1 would have been the least likely part of the Pentagon to be targeted by foreign terrorists, for several reasons: It was as far as possible from the offices of Rumsfeld and the top brass, whom Muslim terrorists presumably would have wanted to kill; it was the only part of the Pentagon that had been reinforced; the reconstruction was not finished, so there were relatively few people there; and it was the only part of the Pentagon that would have presented obstacles to a plane’s flight path (NPHR 76-78).

(14) Contrary to the claim of Pentagon officials that they did not have the Pentagon evacuated because they had no way of knowing that an aircraft was approaching, a military E-4B---the Air Force’s most advanced communications, command, and control airplane---was flying over the White House at the time. Also, although there can be no doubt about the identity of the plane, which was captured on video by CNN and others, the military has denied that it belonged to them (NPHR 96-98).

(15) The Secret Service, after learning that a second World Trade Center building had been attacked---which would have meant that terrorists were going after high-value targets---and that still other planes had apparently been hijacked, allowed President Bush to remain at the school in Sarasota, Florida, for another 30 minutes. It thereby revealed its foreknowledge that Bush would not be a target: If these had really been surprise attacks, the agents, fearing that a hijacked airliner was bearing down on the school, would have hustled Bush away. On the first anniversary of 9/11, the White House started telling a new story, according to which Bush, rather than remaining in the classroom several minutes after Andrew Card whispered in his ear that a second WTC building had been hit, immediately got up and left the room. This lie was told in major newspapers and on MSNBC and ABC television (NPHR 129-31).

(16) Given the fact that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 had steel columns running from their basements to their roofs, they simply could not have come down as they did---straight down at virtually free-fall speed---unless these columns had been sliced by means of explosives. Therefore, the official theory, according to which the buildings came down because of fire plus (in the case of the Twin Towers ) the impact of the planes, is scientifically impossible (NPHR 12-25).

(17) The destruction of the Twin Towers had many other features---such as the horizontal ejections of steel beams, the melting of steel, and the sulfidation and thinning of steel---that can be explained only in terms of powerful explosives. For example, the fires could not have come within 1000 degrees Fahrenheit of the temperature needed to melt steel (30-36).

(18) Members of the FDNY (Fire Department of New York ) provided oral histories shortly after 9/11 in which one fourth of them testified to having witnessed explosions in the Twin Towers . Explosions in the WTC 7 as well as the towers were also reported by city officials, WTC employees, and journalists (NPHR 27-30, 45-48, 51).

(19) Mayor Rudy Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News that day: “we set up headquarters at 75 Barclay Street . . . , and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it [the South Tower] did collapse before we could actually get out of the building.” However, there was no objective basis for expecting the towers to collapse; even the 9/11 Commission admitted that none of the fire chiefs expected them to come down. The FDNY oral histories show that the information that they were going to collapse came from the Office of Emergency Management---Giuliani’s own office. How could Giuliani’s people have known that the towers were going to come down, unless they knew that the buildings had been laced with explosives? (NPH 40)

(20) NIST, which produced the official reports on the Twin Towers and (recently) WTC 7, has been “fully hijacked from the scientific to the political realm,” so that its scientists are little more than “hired guns,” a former employee has reported, and the 9/11 Commission was no more independent, being run by Philip Zelikow, who was essentially a member of the Bush White House (NPHR 11, 238-51).

(21) The official story about 9/11 is now rejected by constantly growing numbers of physicists, chemists, architects, engineers, pilots, former military officers, and former intelligence officials (NPHR xi).

VI. To expand on the final point of that essay: During recent years, the official story has been publicly rejected by various organizations of scientists and professionals.

These organizations include Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (which has over 700 licensed members), Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Intelligence Officers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (which has hundreds of scientists), Scientific Panel for the Investigation of Nine-Eleven, Veterans for 9/11 Truth (which includes several former military officers), and Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth (which includes past or present members of the parliaments of Australia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Sweden, the UK, the United States, and Europe).

As these organizations show, among independent scientists and professionals in the relevant fields who have studied the evidence, the weight of scientific and professional opinion is now overwhelmingly on the side of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

VII. The quality and breadth of the 9/11 Truth Movement’s support is also illustrated by the list of people who have endorsed my books, which includes:

Physicists Steven Jones, John Wyndham, and David Griscom (a fellow of the American Physical Society, now retired from the Naval Research Laboratory).

National Medal of Science winner Lynn Margulis.

AIA architect Richard Gage.

Engineer Jack Keller (who had been given special recognition by Scientific American for his contributions to American society).

Attorney Gerry Spence.
Professors of international law Richard Falk and Burns Weston.

Retired US Marine Corps Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford.

Theologians John B. Cobb, Jr., Harvey Cox, Joseph C. Hough, Rosemary Ruether, and the late William Sloane Coffin, Jr.

Economists Michel Chossudovsky and Paul Craig Roberts,

Former intelligence officers Robert Baer, William Christison, Ray McGovern, and Robert David Steele.
9/11 widows Lorie Van Auken and Monica Gabrielle.

Authors Peter Dale Scott, Jim Hightower, Mark Crispin Miller, Marcus Raskin, and Howard Zinn.

Several political leaders, including Yukihisa Fujita of the Japanese Senate; Michael Meacher of the British Parliament; former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura; Terrell Arnold (former deputy director of the US State Department Office of Counterterrorism); and Catherine Austin Fitts (former assistant secretary of housing).

VIII. There is, in sum, more than enough evidence to subpoena former Vice President Dick Cheney in order to force him to testify under oath about what really happened on 9/11, beginning with contradictions involving his own activities.

If Mineta's testimony is to be taken into account, and there is no apparent reason why it should not be, questions about the timing of events the morning of 9/11 come into focus. Most obvious is, if the standing order given by the Vice President prior to the aircraft hitting the Pentagon was not a shoot down order, then what was it? Perhaps it was the danger of this question, and the danger that Cheney would have had to commit perjury to uphold the timeline reported in the mainstream press, that caused the Vice President to testify to the Commission along with the President in closed session, with no transcript, no witnesses, and no public accountability.

Today, multiple serious investigations are underway as to the evidence used by the Bush administration to justify the war in Iraq (Plame/Wilson incident), and when the administration actually decided to invade Iraq (Downing Street Memos). In fact, it is widely known that Bush declared his desire to invade Iraq to an official biographer in 1999, even before he was appointed President by the Supreme Court. Given what is known today about the deceiving of the American public in order to justify the invasion of Iraq, and given what is known about the 9/11 Commission Report and the unanswered questions surrounding the attacks of 9/11. Is there not sufficient reason to include 9/11 in the overall inquiry into possible criminal actions of the Bush-Cheney administration?

Friday, November 20, 2009

Splitting the Sky to Speak in Calgary on Nov.23rd, 2009

In Calgary:
On Monday, November 23, 2009, Splitting The Sky (STS) will be giving a general talk about his coming trial, scheduled in March 2010, when he will be defending himself against charges of obstruction.

STS was arrested by Calgary Police this year for attempting a citizen's arrest of ex-US president, George Bush, under Canada's War Crimes & Crimes Against Humanity Act. This Act obligates Canada to bar suspected war criminals from entry or arrest them upon landing in the country. Despite this legal obligation and PM Harper's declaration that "Canada will not be a safe haven for war criminals", Canada spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to provide security for Bush and prevented citizens from carrying out the law.

Monday, November 23, 2009; 6PM
1040 14 Avenue SW
Calgary, AB

Come out and listen to the defendant in what may be a landmark case in Canadian legal history!

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Olympics' Top Cop Helped Blow up Truck at Gustafsen Stand-off

RCMP's Bud Mercer was in the thick of several famous clashes with dissenters. This story, with video of the exploding truck, is first in a series.

By Geoff Dembicki and Bob Mackin, Vancouver 24 hours, 20 Oct 2009,

Bud Mercer pictured rifles aimed at him as he pushed deeper into the forest. A short run behind him, past mid-sized poplars and aspens and scraggly bush, lay the smoking remains of a red pick-up truck, disabled minutes earlier by RCMP explosives. A yellow Labrador retriever was slumped close to it. Two police bullets had cut the dog down as it fled on the rutted gravel road. Mercer feared an ambush in the sparse forest. He strained the leash to keep Lukar, his German shepherd police dog, from running too fast. He was flanked by three other officers. The team squatted close to the forest floor every 12 metres, muscles tense. Within minutes, they broke through the bushes and onto the grassy shoreline of Gustafsen Lake. Mercer saw the two fugitives, stripped to their waists, wading into the water. He went to unclip Lukar, knowing the police dog would attack.

But before he could do it, buzzing, whining bullets ripped through the air above him. He hesitated.

On Sept. 11, 1995, up to 7,000 police gunshots climaxed a month-long standoff with natives in the backwoods of interior B.C. Fifteen people were convicted for their armed defence of sacred land they said was never ceded to Canadian settlers.

Mercer now commands a $491.9 million RCMP-led force, tasked with securing the 2010 Winter Olympics. He's a central figure in the biggest peace-time security operation in Canada's history. When athletes and officials arrive next February, many observers wonder if -- and how -- he'll unleash that force.*

Gustafsen Lake isn't the only high profile clash of law enforcement with dissenters where Bud Mercer played a key role. He was on the frontlines when APEC protesters were pepper-sprayed in 1997. And when tree-sitters tried to stop logging in the Elaho Valley in 2000, Mercer led a team to roust them from their perches. The Tyee and 24 Hours have researched these incidents, interviewing Mercer and many people involved, in order to provide a multi-part, in-depth portrait of the top cop of the 2010 Olympics -- his present duties and past controversies. The story starts 14 years ago, as a rebellion brewed in the Shuswap.


Cynthia McKinney to testify at STS trial in March!

From Cynthia McKinney's Newsletter


There's lots of good news on the accountability front. By now, I hope you know about
the Brussels Tribunal's filing in Spain on war crimes committed in Iraq. I will write
more on that later because in Luala Lumpur, I will meet with more Iraqi victims and will
have a lot more to say after I've spoken with them.

John Boncore, Splitting the Sky, Native American freedom fighter now living in Canada
attempted to hold George Bush accountable for his war crimes while Bush was on a visit
in Canada.
Splitting the Sky tried to serve a people's warrant on Bush. Splitting the
Sky is right. Now, he has a court date in March 2010 and we need to support him. As I
learn more from him, I'll definitely pass the information along. Some of us might need
to plan a trip to Canada for March!!


Letter from Josh Blakeney

Mr Vince Carlin (Ombudsman CBC),

You can see, from the link attached, how many of us are curious why Splitting the Sky's trial is making international news, yet the country in which the brave and courageous act occurred has suppressed the story. Cynthia McKinney, former US presidential candidate, who speaks to audiences of thousands of people every week, is now spreading the word about STS's upcoming trial. Will CBC be reporting this important and significant event in Canadian history? If the journalists for whatever reason deem STS's trial not newsworthy - as they did with the original footage of him being arrested - who can be held to account for this poor judgement?

Please see Cynthia McKinney's latest speech to a massive audience in Malaysia where she refers explicitly to STS's brave actions:
(Cynthia announces her intention to testify at my trial in March!)

You will notice that George Galloway is sitting behind Cynthia. I broke the news to the UK public in March on live national radio that STS had undertaken such courageous efforts and tried to arrest George W Bush for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Now Galloway has been reminded about STS's actions he will, no doubt be addressing this story on his biweekly radio show which is on the most listened to private radio station in the UK.:

Is it to be the case that people all over the world are going to be hearing about STS's bravery, yet the Canadian people are going to be denied this story? Isn't it your responsibility to judge the quality of the reporting on CBC news and to suss out any malfeasance, racism or bias implicit in the choice of newsworthy content? Will you get a guarantee from the CBC news department that this story will be covered this coming March (which is in about 22 weeks time)?
yours sincerely,

Joshua Blakeney

Media Coordinator of Globalization Studies
University of Lethbridge

Splitting The Sky in Montreal December 5th

Delivering the Bush/Cheney Gang to a Contemporary Equivalent of Nuremberg…

December 5, 2009

Lecture with Mohawk activist Dacajeweiah (Splitting the Sky)

On March 17, 2009 Splitting the Sky performed his civic duty, acting with respect of the Law and integrity from the heart - pursuing to arrest a credibly suspected war criminal and former US President, George W. Bush. Using the principles of Kaianereh’ko:wa Splitting the Sky proved his loyalty and integrity, upholding the Great Law. He was arrested and charged with Obstruction of Justice to which he will face his day in court on March 8th 2010 in Calgary Alberta.

Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark former Georgia State Representative Cynthia McKinney have accepted to testify in his defence. Leading 9/11 author Dr. David Ray Griffin has provided him with an eighteen page affidavit to be read before the court and former Canadian diplomat,retired professor and political writer Peter Dale Scott has also accepted to testify if requested.

When: Saturday, December 5, 2009
Start time: 19h00
Location: Centre St-Pierre, 1212 Rue Panet(corner Rene Levesque east), salle 100,5mins from Beaudry metro
Admission: suggested donation of $10.00. The event is to raise awareness and help raise funds for his legal defence
after he was arrested and charged with Obstruction of Justice to which he will face his day in court on March 8th 2010 in Calgary Alberta.